threats to north korea. if a bomb goes off and we know it came from you, it will be as if you were the one who set it off. all of this new -- you know, we had to invent a huge infrastructure after 1945 to deal with the fact of nuclear weapons in the world. we're going to have to invent another huge infrastructure to deal with the idea of a world where there are no nuclear weapons. it's sort of a mirror image of the other in a way. but in some ways, very similar. so i don't mean to sound pie in the sky, because i'm not. i understand this is going to be a hard, hard problem, and the question is always going to be, will it be worth it for enough countries to make it move? ..

but. >> already fixed up a little bit. there was great concern on the part of those in reagan's advisers that he not be depicted as offering to eliminate nuclear weapons. that was just kind of cut out of the transcript, but it was in the russian transcript. not surprisingly, the russian transcript was a verbatim stenographic report. whoever was making that record did not want to be shown when he got home to moscow as having

been remiss for having left anything out. he was afraid of that, obviously. here were these two documents. i wrote a play which has had readings around the country, of the reykjavik summit, which i hope will get a protection one of these days. it still needs some work, but i was so struck by the inherent drama of these two leaders called of intent. president reagan was a nuclear abolitionist. from 1945 onward. a little-known fact for most of his life, and he saw it as his most important goal as president. again, the people around him in the white house thought he was a fool. they just did not listen to him. the problem for him was he could not see what he would do about a cheater. if some country was going to cheat on elimination, world without nuclear weapons, how

could you do with that? the answer he came up with, a technological solution to the problem is encouraged by edward teller. so when he came to the summit at reykjavik president gorbachev goal was to at least cut real arsenals and ideally begin to eliminate them. he wanted a piece of the soviet budget to go into supporting and improving the lives of the soviet people. corbett of was of very unusual leader of the soviet union. a farmer's son. he grew up on a collective farm. he won four years scholarship to the best university in russia, moscow university. by combining more fleets in the summer of his 17th year. he got a medal for it which he always said afterward was the best medal he had on his chest.

he was someone who came from a totally different place than the city slickers in moscow who were generally part of the soviet hierarchy. one of the things he discovered early on was that no soviet premier had ever told the military industrial complex, no, you can't have all you want. rubberstamp whenever the military industrial complex ask for. when those people came into his office his response was, are you planning to attack the united states? if you are, get out of my office. we need the stuff. nevertheless when he came to rickie vick he had been given a limited to his negotiating. that was president reagan had to give up.

that is not mohamad on the mountain, but in the background he made such a perfect villain in the play. richard perle. a crucial moment. but president reagan said, maybe we should take the steel. we can work it out down the road. this was the best deal i've seen in 25 years of negotiating. the president told his advisers around the ground he can to richard perle. richard perle, knowing exactly where to stick in the knife, mr. president, it will destroy fbi. as a result he said they can't make the deal. as gorbachev realized at the end of the summit and as he said that the press conference, this was not a failure. we agreed to eliminate a whole class of nuclear-weapons,

medium-range missiles in europe, and this is the beginning of something that will continue. said gorbachev brought security to the table. reagan brought fbi. sadly not quite as much as the might have been. however, the people who are in government on our side have said to me with the bullets, if you think president reagan or president gore detective of gorbachev could have gone back to their staff from with the deal like that, anywhere with that at all, you are crazy. so there was a vested interest on both sides. we certainly would have thought any such agreement. therefore, who knows. it did not quite happened, but it certainly makes interesting theater. >> ladies and gentlemen, let's give a big round. [applause] >> thank you.

>> richard rhodes is the author of over 20 books. his book, the making of the atom bomb, was a recipient of the pulitzer prize and nonfiction and the national book award. also the host correspondent of public television's american experience and front line. for more information visit richard rhodes dot com. >> books tv is on twitter. follow as for regular updates on our programming and news on nonfiction books and authors. >> the problem over the long term is while it starts promising, often over the long term the entrenchment needs to paranoia, stagnant see, andy's.

over long term. the cbs and nbc had a lot to say by the 1970's things had gone too far. so what i guess a more modified version of my position, if it is important to have the institutes, the structure that can support quality, but not at the cost of entrenching. so long that they lose any sight of what they have to do. i think that's what happened with me the -- many of the organizations in this country. >> i guess to follow-up questions. one is pre scripted and one is descriptive. of did he scripted one first. a wonderful job of describing this tragic process. you just described in a communication meeting. all things are possible. there are these wonderful dreams of how fabulous it is going to be. the title comes from the long

forgotten time when there were such dreams about cable television. remember those days? and then inevitably the bad guys take over and get their hands on the master switch. how can that not happen again if it happens every time? >> what journalists need to understand is the importance of creative destruction. the very technical. we want to see companies die and be destroyed. journalists are afraid of death. a poor relationship. >> so unfair. >> there was. much of these that's unheard of in other industries to have any sort of turmoil or natural process, bran's the last for hundreds and hundreds of years and dominant positions. journalists -- exactly.

what is needed in journalism is a little bit of creative destruction. it is not comfortable, but over the long run it will be good for you. >> you are switching from descriptive to prescriptive. let's switch back for a minute. the model -- i think richard would say this based on my reading of his book. tim, you are trimming. unabom, in the communications meeting as powerful as the internet just cannot be a liberal. it just cannot ever build a big enough sense around it to keep the process that has always happened in the past from happening again. so just as a practical matter how do you think we can prevent this process that you are convinced is cyclical from happening in this instance. >> sure. the answer is related by some of

my other works on things like that it valley. they're always needs to be channels, whether it is the internet or other channels, with the new can challenge the old. the new york times gets a run for its money and nbc is suddenly facing off against youtube videos. there have to be these channels. biologists go on the offensive. the problem is the kind of worship in your book, it's too insensitive to the fact that managerial capitalism tends to make market entry very difficult. we will just put it that way. >> the problem with your argument, tim, is that there is no getting around the inevitability of the cycle. if i read your book i would come away very depressed. every single case you tell is one in which you have these old innovators with great ideas who

were stomped down upon by the other money mad were reactionary plutocrats and then something happens. this wonderful idea is born in someone's career as an addict. that just isn't so. there were major public policy triumphs. bell loses big time in the 19. they don't stick it to control the telegraph. the separations principle that you write about so persuasively and movingly in your final section. by 1927. at&t out of the content business. content in conduit. if you have not had the studio system and hollywood, the coming together of the people making the movies and the ownership of the theaters, the united states might never have established a dominant position in the world film business. we did. we have 80 percent of the

market. the europeans could not get their act together. we did. that made possible the creativity that led to this cell sustained development of hollywood. >> if he did not have the hollywood studio system you also would have had the most heinous example of private. >> that is ridiculous. both -- the most famous -- heinous example of. >> the consolidation of the industry and the hollywood studio system, very vertically integrated studios. the catholic church was finally able to enforce production code.

this is bad. you know, bad things are coming. describe his job as shoving at dicks down the throats of the jews i am here to shove at dicks down the throats. was never made. this is a form of that should be in powerful. one man. >> this is the problem with the whole book. these zero individuals who a ride out of nowhere, the market medium, the reason he did what he did is because seven states were poised to enact cut of their own. the states could create a patchwork of restrictions on movies. goodness knows what the consequences would have been to be studios worked with green

because it was an alternative to government at the state level, and that would have been reminiscent of the at the state level. right up until the new york times. >> here are couple of upcoming book fairs and festivals from around the country. the washington antiquarian book fair in arlington, virginia, where rare books, maps, and illustrations are available to see and purchased. you can also have your own rare books and materials appraised. book tv will be live from the tucson testable books on march 12th and 13th. coverage including author presentations and interviews and taking your calls and sending tweets from the event. follow us on twitter at book tv. for more upcoming book fairs and festivals visit booktv.org and click on book tv on the top of the paint.

>> it is presidents day weekend. book tv is featuring three days of programming from eight a.m. on saturday to a dam on tuesday. for a full listing of progress visit booktv.org and click on tv schedule. >> elaine showalter, professor emeritus of english profiles american female writers from the 17th century to today. she recounts the writing careers of at the ten, harriet beecher stowe, zora neal hurston, and many others describing obstacles that theme of writers have had to face throughout history. this program is a little under an hour. >> back when i was a new ph.d. in 1970 and i entered in my first anthology. this is it. this one out brittled red covered book called women's

literature to of liberation and literature. i think it was the first textbook for feminist criticism that had ever been published. i got to do it. i was a new ph.d. i was in my first assistant professorships job. i felt a tremendous sense of responsibility doing this book. when i did it putting together the list of text that i wanted was not very hard, especially because in those days i did not even know of that many. i get a real shock when i sat down to a copyright holders get permission to reprint, i had wanted to include sylvia plath's celebrated poem, daddy. you probably all know that poem. wanted to include two other poems. i was really going for broke. when i broke to plath's executor and also the sister of her

estranged husband who was rumored to be somewhat of a ferocious person, all -- the response came that to be paired with costa hundred dollars. i was paying for the permission fees out of the pittance that i got for doing the book. at the beginning i had not very much money of my own. owen says that the of the two columns i had asked for or $50 each. that was the beginning of my literary career. i will tell you that i settled for a $50 palm. i struck a bargain and i bought a palm which was really quite a long poem, and magnificent poem about in the between two women in spite of the title. a wonderful palm which was a cheaper palm for reasons that we can speculate about. well, that was my introduction to the business of a literary

anthology. as an idealistic him scholar it had never occurred to me that poland could be rated by their ticket price as well as by their quality. that experience really changed my perception of literature forever. from then on i really understood, i think, that literature has always been a business, palms, stories, essays, and the novels are products in the marketplace as well as acts of creative imagination. professional writers depend on their market value as well as the critical reception. in this new collection i have to poems by sylvia plath, and i have to tell you, i still can't afford daddy. you know. boy, that was an unbelievable bargain. having it has escalated. so i still campaign for it. i have chosen to other problems,

very powerful poems written in the last few months before her suicide. i've realized that sometimes financial constraint forces you to look beyond the conventional and find something really wonderful. not all the time, but in this case. so fast forward to the present. in 2003i signed a contract to write a jury of her peers which has many female writers, but it is in literary history more than an anthology. my editor suggested to me that it would be a good idea to put together an anthology to go with it and to be published in paperback. that is the book i'm talking about today. was extremely welcome as a suggestion. i know that many of the work side talk about in "a jury of her peers" are out of print, hard to find, and traders say, where can i get ahold of these texts? that i am interested and curious, where can i read them? i knew from the beginning that it was a given i could not

possibly include all the important work by american women writers since 1650 in a single volume. that i knew from the start. on the other hand, before this there has never been a single volume anthology of american women's writing. that seemed to me kind of staggering as an omission in the 21st century. i knew that i wanted to make an anthology. i wanted to put together a book that was portable, economical, not weighted down by all of the apparatus of a textbook that brought together stories and poems and essays by american women writers, as many as possible that would reflect their diversity of subject and style, works that were beautiful, tragic, funny, satiric or inspiring or all of the above. and the anthology overall was intended to offer partial list

of the most significant women writers in american literary tradition and to provide a kind of map of their relation to each other and to american literature in general. those are my opinions. now, all of us know, i think, that today the anthology is a genre very much dominated by a few large and wealthy publishers who can afford to hire the knowledgeable editors and researchers required to put a good book together and to have the bottomless pockets to pay the staggering permission fees for reprinting work in copyright. most of the important and wide ranging anthologies are aimed, of course, at the textbook market, most of the college textbook market. there are multi volume works, over 5,000 pages. they have passed budgets, fast

sales, something of a student captive market. there has been quite a discussion recently about the price of textbooks for college university students. over the past 15 years there have been getting bigger, more elaborate, more expensive. they are packaged with maps, pictures, teaching manuals, and in some cases but audio and video supplements. you are buying an entire experience when you buy one of these. that is now will we are trying to do. of want you to put together a book for the general reader as well as an undergraduate. to do it without the enormous committees and consultations is of big test. i started out by making a list of all the worse i would like to include in a utopian publishing world. then with the help of a grant from the mellon foundation i was able to pay three graduate

assistants, to from princeton and one from harvard to help me go through the library's to see if there were works and writers i had overlooked. vintage had established a rough guideline. i am going to let you and all of these. they're goes my hearing. abbott going to let you in on all of these statistics, financial statistics. vintage had established a rough guideline of 800 pages. they were willing to pay about $20,000 permission fees, which is probably about a tenth or less the amount of big textbook publisher had. this was huge business, the textbook and caused market. now, bell 800 pages, $20,000. copyright law, some of you may know, is different in every country. the guidelines in the united states that i was given by my publisher were to get permission for everything published after

1922. they figure that would cover everything. canadian law is different, and i had to get some canadian rights as well. british law is also very different, but no british publisher was willing to put up the money to produce an anthology of american female writers, and a think that is a shame. that gives you a bit of background. however, even with my cynical view of the commercial and financial aspects of intelligence publishing and with the encouragement and back up for my very patient and analysts optimistic another advantage i was really unprepared for the nightmare of getting permission. i cut my list to 100 writers. i had to write for permission, copyright permissions for 48 of them. forty-eight of them who have worked under copyright

protection. i started a year before the publication date. the years that followed, a year ago, in other words, and education for me in the bureaucracy, agreed, a control freak three, in efficiency, and outright lying, and the blindness to copyright holders to the circumstances of in the 21st century. i thought, naively, that many executives and copyright holders would be happy to have some long forgotten story or poem by a writer that nobody had talked about in 30 years, 40 years. abbott, and say, i'm going to reprint this. we will be called the bid to to look of american women. they did not see this as an opportunity to find new audiences for their riders. there were a tiny number of exceptions. in fact, there were two exceptions. peter davis, the sun of tesla

singer his wonderful stories are in the book. just fabulous story. happy to have his mother's work made available, and exceptionally generous with his terms. overall copyright holders made it as hard as possible for me to anthologize and reprint they're riders works. permission editors lost my letters until prodded by their bosses were by the agreed authors when they miraculously lifted the letters in a matter of minutes. that when pressed the persons editor was quite annoyed with me for continuing to pester her about a writer's work because she had many other responsibilities. true, i'm sure. we know that publishers, like every other business, are being cut back. she had a lot of things to do. somebody has to handle the permission. i would think that in these days permission views could be centralized and standardized and

handled online. they are not. on their website publishers say that they will respond to written or e-mail queries into the six weeks. they warn you not to telephone them to follow up. in fact, several of the largest publishers took up to five months to reply to simple queries. in one case i never could get a reply from the copyright holder and just give up. when you read reviews, you look think, why is this so and so? want you to know, these are some of the reasons why ryder x did not make it into these books to be back in 1970's they thought a hundred dollars was a lot of money. but palms and stories have become a lot more costly, like everything else. the price is set by the copyright holder. there is absolutely no standard or convention. you charged with the market can bear. you judge what you think you can get away with. there is no correlation to

length or even to the fame of the writer with a classic nature of the work. in other words, you might expect to pay a lot of money for a story that has been reprinted. you could be charged as much for a 10-line poem by a poet that nobody has ever heard of an all. there seems to be no sense among executors' that there is a difference here or that there might be some kind of discussion. to these people ever get together and talk to each other about what they are selling? so they ask for exorbitant sums closer work. radical authors, which it i have politically radical, lest -- left wing, feminist, just as demanding and uncompromising as those with a much more commercial and mainstream. in fact, there is a scholar named kerry nelson who is a left-wing academic editor himself. he has edited anthologies of modern american poetry.

he has written that trying to reprint work by radical writers is the real source of the expression in the red. now, carry nelson, who i know, and his experience with the permission process which you describe in a funny article was very similar. she actually enjoyed bargaining with publishers. he liked making them offers the could not refuse. his publisher that university press did all the correspondence. checked in at the end in a good, bad cop routine threatening to drop the riders altogether if the publishers did not come through and cut their fees. i did a little bit of bargaining. i don't enjoy it all that much. i did it. but many publishers took so long to reply that the book had actually gone to press before i even heard back from them. to negotiations were concluded

on the final day of the last month of the minutes before the book was printed. even an important writer cannot always control copyright permission. i wanted to include and it includes the wonderful source story building gloves. wanted to included because it is a short story by a woman writer about a boxer. i wanted to include counter intuitive examples. women right about everything. there are not limited to feminine subjects. i rode away. found out who had the copyright. after many months i appeal to enjoys herself was an old friend and a supporter. she was really very glad that i wanted to reprint the story. as ever been anthologized before turns out the copyright on golden gloves was held by a former publisher who had left many years ago. the rights had never reverted to

her. she appealed for them to be merged with this to say, charge me a very low slung for this story. of course they didn't. they charged a whopping fee between paid back. in many cases i have had this experience myself as an academic writer, and so has my husband and other people. a lot of writers i know. the writers themselves never get paid on these copyright royalties from the publisher. this is kind of limbo land. not in every case punt in some cases. who is in control? in addition to the financial hassle many of the agents, secretaries command of the representatives insisted that they should look at my head nets to the selection of the writer. wanted to critique it, make sure that it was all okay. several of them wanted to know

and wanted xeroxed copies of the writer who would come before them and the writer who would come after them in the book deal. the book is actually a raised by the riders to the birth. i didn't have a lot of flexibility and that. there were writers and agents to demanded revisions of headnotes, objected to critical statements that i made about them. in one case the complaint that i had not given sufficient space in the till to the author's political causes. that is a long westbound. finally i had to drop 20 of my original 100 riders because there were too expensive or demanding or controlling in their requests. i think none of you will be surprised to hear that once i had agreed to the fee and signed the contract the same publishers and executives wasted no time at all in sending out there bills. there were very speedy about

that. so putting together a literary anthology demands a lot of tough and painful editorial decisions. i did not -- and made a decision that i would not include excerpts of novels published after 1900. some of the american novels are very long, not that readable by modern authors. if you want to have some sense of them represented. i did want to include some of our major women novelists. now, tony morrison, someone who said in an early review. okay. published one short story. it is called ready to achieve. if there is in the anthology of american writing the story will be ended because it is the sure story by toni morrison, a pretty good story, but it is long.

it is very expensive, as you can imagine. i had to choose between including that and including five of the pieces by of the wine writers. now, when robinson, another contemporary artist who i admire tremendously, also published only one sure story, she did not want to have it reprinted. i think it's quite good, but she didn't want it to come to light again. a number of my favorite contemporary writers of stories that were both very long and very expensive but. i certainly have been aware for a long time to beat you look at anthologies, especially the deal with the contemporary. they would often have a great deal of poetry in them. maybe one poem per paulette. that is when it was cheaper and you could get more writers and if you just used appalled. it isn't always cheaper, but it is sometimes. i did not want to go that route

or have a lot of short fiction. i will mention, by the way, that i have been cut from antilogy myself as a critic. but around 2000 anthology criticism came out. the editors had to cut 300 pages at the last minute. the new york times wrote this up. this is what happens when you're working with gordon. the new york times wrote it up. a publisher on the front page. they noted that elaine showalter had been dropped from the book. one of my proudest moments. although, my transcripts students reacted to this as if i had been host from an elite club. they were most distressed and felt that it was a shameful experience for me to be exposed in that way. anyway, the anthology is about the art of the possible, like politics and of the things.

nonetheless, i am very happy with the way this book turned out, and i am excited to think that readers will be able to find astonishing work, moving work, finding work by writers who will be new to them but who i feel should be recognized as important figures in literary history. i hope they will also be able to recognize some of the genres and styles that are characteristic of american women's writing. for example, the table or allegory, form used by american female writers from the 18th century to the present including writers as diverse as katherine sedgwick, kate chopin, mary austin, shirley jackson. i could go on and on. i want to conclude by reading one of these fables that is quite short called she and named them by ursula grade. how many of you that this piece?

this would be something new, and i hope he will like it. it said -- it is set in the garden of eden, told by a very rebellious youth and buried much in its time reflecting the concern and fascination of feminists and the 1980's, escaping from patriarch, the idea that language is a language invented by man and therefore controls we can express. creating a new way of speaking and writing. says she and named them. most of them accepted nameless this with a perfect indifference with which they have so long accepted and ignore their names. brails and dolphins, seals and sea otters consented to a particular grace and alacrity sliding into anonymity as into their element.

a faction protested. they said yack found right and almost everyone who knew they existed call them that. unlike the ubiquitous creatures that have been called by hundreds of thousands of different names, the dax could truly say they said they had a name. they discussed the matter all summer. the councils of the elderly females finally agreed that the the name might be useful to others it was so redundant that they never spoke of themselves. might just as well dispense with it. after they presented the argument in this light the full consensus was delayed only by the onset of severe early blizzards. soon after the beginning their agreement was reached and the designation yack was returned. among the domestic animals be

few horses had care what anybody called them. cattle, sheep, swine, meals, and goats along with chickens comedies, and turkeys all agreed enthusiastically to give their names back to the people to whom as they put it they belonged. i assume they mean the name belonged, not the animals. a couple of problems to it, apple. the cats, of course, steadfastly denied ever having had in the name. but other than those sold given, unspoken personal names which is the poet named elliot says they spend long hours daily contemplating. it was with the dog, paris, lovebirds, the trouble arose. these verbally talented individuals insisted their names were important and flatly refused to part. as soon as they understood that the issue was precisely one of individual choice and if anybody who wanted to be called rover

were pauley or even birdie in the personal sense was perfectly free to do so. not one of them had the least objection to parting with the war as regard to german, upper congeneric, brutal, parrot, dog, or bird. all the qualifiers that trailed along behind them for 200 years like tin cans tied to the tail. the insects parted with their name. vast clouds and storms of syllables buzzing and stinging and humming and crawling and tunnelling way. as for the fish in the sea, their names disbursed in silence throughout the ocean by a faint, dark powers of cuttlefish and drifted off on the currents without a trace. none were left. how close i felt the them bill and i saw one of them swim or

fly or a truck or crawl across my way, over my skin, or stuck me in the night or go along beside me for a while in the day. they seemed far closer when their names have stood between myself and them like a clear barrier. so close that my fear of them and their fear of me became one same fear. the attraction that many of us felt, the desire to snow one another's smell, feel a love or caress one another's skills or scan or feathers or for, taste one another's blood or keep one another warm, that attraction was no all one with your. it could not be told from the hunted war the ec from the food. this was more or less the effect had been after. it was somewhat more powerful than i had anticipated, but i could not now in all conscience make an exception for myself. i resolutely but anxiety away,

went to adam and said, you and your father lent me this, give it to me. it has been really useful, but it does not exactly seem to fit very well. thanks very much. has been very used about. it is hard to give back a gift without sounding peevish or ungrateful. i did not want to leave him with that impression of me. he was not paying much attention as it happened and said only put it down and went on with what he was doing. one of my reasons for doing what i did was that talk was getting us nowhere. all the same i felt a little letdown. i felt, perhaps when he did notice he might be upset. a put some things away and fiddle around. he continued to do what he was doing and took no notice. so at last a said, good-bye. he was fitting parts together and said without looking around,

okay. when skinner? i'm not sure, i said. i'm going now. i hesitated and finally said with them and went on out. i had only just then realized how hard it would have been to explain myself. i could not chatter away, as i used to taking it all for granted. my words now must be as slow beware, new, and single, a tentative as the steps i took going down the path away from the house between the dark motionless against the one to shy. so, i want to leave you with a question about this. the speaker give back the name of the four woman? what difference would it make? now if you all have any

questions or comments i would be very happy. [applause] >> i have a question. >> people who have the copyright >> no. no. it was, as i said, but the most politically radical writers were just as bad as the other ones. the ones. this is all the product of late capitalism. but i mean, whether you were against it or not, when it came time to ask it did not matter. a number of the people who work in publishing it don't pay them very well, give them lots of

other jobs to do. this kind of falls by the wayside. i am not the only person who says this. anyone who has done an anthology like this will tell you what a nightmare it is to try to get permissions. it seems to be something that the internet is made for. handled online. standardized, why can't there be some kind of condition. making easy to get this done. it is very old-fashioned. >> i'm going to start my hope teaching career over again. i really think this is a wonderful book. second thing is emily dickinson, to have to pay wealthy harvard university to print emily dickinson, anything of emily dickinson. i noticed that you have three. they are all out of copyright. now, all of emily dickinson is

wonderful. but this is really what it comes down to. i think it is fascinating because the raiders, this is not what you think about. when you look at the budget and are faced with spending several thousand dollars for these works, you get a chance to get some of it for free or for less. this is what you have to do. it is a fascinating case study in this nexus of commerce and art. you know, or production and education, however you want to look at it. these are hard decisions to make. it is a system, and it is a system that is really becoming. >> the latest addition about palms. i mean, you don't care if the one in the news. >> i have the latest. >> you get. >> some of them you think coroner earlier. others have not been renewed. harvard with the people who wrote and said very kindly that

you could have these laws for nothing. >> the third question is, you said there were two people who were very generous. you name one. you with the other? >> cynthia m. bozeman was incredibly generous. very kind. indeed she wrote a kind of addendum that i've quoted in the book. kind of a new peace. always struggled in her literary career with whether she is a woman writer. she does not like to be called. she has not like to be called because as he was going up, and this is what her essay suggests, being out the no rider was accepting. i think she has kind of gone over that. she was incredibly kind and efficient and helpful and supportive. but i was just staggered. i am obviously not going to name names. i was just amazed that people

who i thought would be helpful and understanding and happy. i don't know. it is not the writers' fault in this case. people who control. and the literature is a very complicated series of strata. once you get into that round you get into the legal and financial aspects of it. out of the control of the writer. >> thank you for all the work you did on this. >> thank you. >> sure. >> i'm just wondering,.

>> at think we are pass that. female writers are writers. they are women like they are american. american anthology. sometimes you might recognize of team that you think is feminine or american, but a lot of other times you want. i think that is really good. it is a step toward creative freedom. i'm all in favor of that. on the other hand and women are writers, another kind of level of the nexus of theater and market. female writers are reviewed. the stereotypes still come into play. you see it every week. the post, i think is really very good about this and very aware.

the new york times, not so good. a lot of other places, not so good. so, when i sit down to right and just a writer. and i have published and reviewed i am a woman writer. i think that sums it up pretty effectively. whenever people think a female writer might be. >> as i said, i think that it was a male view to begin with. women internalized. there have been earlier and colleges, not american film writing, but women's writing collectively. in every addition there was always team of writers who seem to be in the book. now, you try and compare. you imagine an anthology of black writers. you imagine anybody saying i will be in that? you know, it is because female writers felt that it was a

stigma. the will say that in this anthology nobody told me they wouldn't be. at think that is a kind. rachel. [inaudible] >> my nature. >> yes. >> well, i think. >> could you repeat. >> yes. there is still a sense. whether there is still a sense of marginality for female writers. and like other minority writers, not that women are in minority statistically speaking, but they feel that they are not quite

representative of the hole. theirs is a marginal view. they cannot speak for the entire culture. >> i think that most women, like the idea of being identified as women. at think there is a pride that there was in before. at think that what we have not achieved is a balance, you know. i am a woman, but i am also part of the society. that balance. at think there is a lab with the critics. they are even further. >> at think you are absolutely right. particularly problematic for american writers because we have this fantasy called the great

american author. the g a.m., the great american novel. it has always been assumed that a great american novel must be about male experience. so when are somehow excluded from that category. in the past decade we have had a number of famous writers who died. every time a great american male writer dies there are a whole spate of articles. who is calling to take his place, who is appointed take salingers' place. who is writing the great american novel now. there will be a risk of 20 young male writers are middle-aged riders. sometimes even elderly male writers. maybe one woman stuck on at the end. and it is very frustrating because the assumption is somehow that the female experience is not the american experience and certainly not the great american experience that is like to be reflected in the

novel. it is really hard to contest with that. there was a tremendous laps recently about jonathan his novel was picked up by a number of critics, mostly male, but not entirely. the gm, another great american novel. really about a lot of the things that women write about. it is about domestic life, and some women writers said, you know, women just don't get this kind of attention. they don't get this kind of focus. it has not really happened yet. it is usually treated to subject matter. it clearly isn't. it is really about gender. is really when it is a man writing about the family. when it is a woman writing about the family.

>> could you -- have you talked about how it is perceived in america? obviously the book is american authors. is it different in different countries? , women often treated differently? europe or asia then there would be? >> absolutely. different country by country. i won't try to go through it one by one. in england where i started to do my sculley work. where i lived part of the time and have for many years. there is a difference. not that anxious when writers are totally happy. it is not the same tradition of hope of the great novel, the great english novel. in addition if you look at the literary tradition in great burden among there are a number of women who helped form. jane austen, george eliot and so on. it is extremely hard to come in at this point and say women are not capable of producing it when

they created it. at think the expectations are different. if you look at 19th century the richer in the united states most people have when i ask this question can identify to american female writers in the 19th century, emily dickinson and harriet beecher stowe. dickenson is definitely accepted, although i once taught a course. we were doing whitman and dickenson. and it can to dickenson he said i just can't read this little bitty palms. i don't want to bother with that. there are still a few drawbacks. but harriet beecher stowe entered american literary as a best seller and a kind of pulp fiction writer, somebody who wrote very important fiction and had a huge historical impact, but not as an artist. one of the things i tried to do in my book is contest that attitude.

we don't have an american jane austen or a 19th century female novelist to have the same status. at think there has to be challenges. we have to it say all these women writers producing artistically significant work here just never got the attention that they deserve. you need to dismantle that. so i think if you read reviews in england now there won't be quite the same in balance that there is an american reviewing, and there are a lot more than used for book reviewing in great burden then there are in the united states. you get more different voices on its publication, and here they are dwindling. >> hi. >> i have two questions. both related to what you mentioned. that these question. >> yes. >> the first one is when you said it is viewed differently,

if you differently if it is written by a male author. he said attributable to gender discrimination. the second one is okay. male writer versus female writers. 5050, 6040. what is it? and now procuress. >> i can't really answer very precisely your questions about how many. it depends on what you're looking at. the new york times, there have been studies. new york times book review which is now still the dominant reviewing firm in the united states. all the other ones closed down. and very recently there was a study done at the new york times and the review is perm predominantly mal.